Questions about Fahrenheit 911

He is very slanted. Here is the deal. He will latch onto a good topic, then he will expose some good info on it, but he never goes far enough to tell the WHOLE story and instead begins slanting it to his personal view. Here are some examples to maybe give her an idea of how Moore's work is kind of like a baby step to discovering the real truth...

With Fahrenheit 9/11 he exposed some good info about the Bush crime family links and how they profit from war, etc, but he then uses it for his current political agenda (which was to be as anti-Bush as possible and demonize all republicans as warmongers and lirs/thieves, etc). He never even mentions that congress voted down a declaration of war against Afghanistan and one for Iraq with most democrats even voting it down. He also never explains that the flip side of that is that a majority of democrats and republicans voted to instead give up their congressional authority (some would say responsibility) to President Bush to use military force in those countries at his discretion. He also does not explain that the democrats have repeatedly voted to keep funding the war and authorizing additional funds to allotted for those war efforts.

In Sicko he exposes insurance companies for the penny pinchers that they are and exposes the crap they try to pull so they do not have to pay out. Then he slants the "documentary" to promote his universal healthcare agenda he adopted from Hillary Clinton. He exposes the worst of the worst of American medical care. Then he goes to countries where socialized medicine is in practice and he shows the very best of socialized medicine (I am sure him using his name as a "big american movie star and director, etc etc" got him extra special treatment even). He admitted that the movie was very slanted and biased toward promoting universal health care in America and he said all documentaries are slanted to promote an agenda.

In Bowling for Columbine he discusses guns and he is very direct in his agenda being proposed, which is heavy gun control and disarming citizens. He repeatedly says countries that ban guns have less gun deaths.. Yes, but they have more overall crime because criminals know they cannot be shot. He does not discuss Arizona where you can wear a gun on your hip and how very low the crime is there. He fails to ever mention the reason behind the second amendment. He also never mentions that the kids involved in the Columbine and other shootings were on psychotropic drugs in the prozac class which is shown to potentially cause psychotic and suicidal thoughts and fits. He does not discuss the fact that if the teachers were allowed to have a conceal carry license, the two would have been shot down in short order instead of waiting for cops to do something. He fails to mention a LOT in that movie and acts like if the American people are denied the right to have guns that everything would be sunshine and roses.

Maybe if you discuss things like that with her she will understand a little more and make her start seeing things in a different light.. Like when she hears a headline or story, encourage her to go research it and find out what the real deal is.

Just some ideas for you!

He's a "Demoncrat" huh?

I was wantin' to know the same thing posted above about her thoughts on Freedom to Fascism..

I think Michael Moore is a good guy. He has brought a lot of corruption out into the limelight. I don't agree with him on everything..but I actually think he should be a Ron Paul publicity person..

I do believe that Sicko probably is one of the most truth telling pieces because of the people in it that are speaking..

but who knows..

sometimes you have to be spoon fed a bit at a time. Michael Moore is a good appetizer but Freedom to Fascism....

is a damn good main course!!

-Liberty Girl

I don't think I could have made it through that one..
But hopefully I can pull some common ground out of the Fahrenheit 911
and convert her over to see socialism does not work.

The Elite like to play both sides of the issue -- Hegelian Dialectic

IMO

with you at her side, how can she go wrong. Hang in there.

I too have been deciding to get that movie and see what I think now, now that I think differently. I was wondering how much different I would feel about it now. Before, I wasn't even willing to watch it, now I will. I have found new tolerance for Rosie, for Donahue, and even for Jane Fonda. Not saying I agree with any of them necessarily, but just that I find it is the time to take a second look at what they said and what they did and decide again.

I found Fahrenheit 9/11 to be shallow and disappointing too, so much so I vowed to never watch any more of Michael Moore's films. I think he's actually working for the government, especially after producing the socialized medicine plug called "SiCKO." And "Bowling for Columbine," I've heard, is a total plug for gun control laws. Why else would his movies be popular enough to win awards and be carried by movie rental stores?

Freedom to Fascism? Any wake-up calls?

If someone is open to Micheal Moore movies then they should have no problems watching Arron Russo's movie. Moore actually skirts around some of the same things that "we" have seen and come to realize.